Broadway Care Centre Ltd, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

Broadway Care Centre Ltd, R (on the application of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council

The decision to terminate the contract was not amenable to judicial review as it was a private law act without sufficient public law nexus. The claimant lacked standing to assert residents' Article 8 rights, not being a 'victim' under s7 HRA 1998. Duties under statutory guidance and the Escalating Concerns Guidance were owed to residents, not the provider. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of public law duties. Article 1 Protocol 1 was not engaged as there was no deprivation of possessions. The claimant's remedy lay in private law.

Parties
Claimant: Broadway Care Centre Limited; Defendant: Caerphilly County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Permission and Substantive Claim (rolled Up Hearing)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Standing, Article 8 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Guidance, Termination of Contract, Care Home Regulation
Administrative Law Contract Law Human Rights Law Social Care Law Judicial Review Standing Article 8 ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broadway Care Centre Limited

Claimant

Caerphilly County Borough Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Permission and Substantive Claim (rolled Up Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the decision to terminate the contract amenable to judicial review?
  2. 2 Does the claimant have standing to seek judicial review to protect residents' Article 8 rights?
  3. 3 What duties are owed and is there a breach entitling the claimant to relief?

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to terminate the contract was not amenable to judicial review as it was a private law act without sufficient public law nexus. The claimant lacked standing to assert residents' Article 8 rights, not being a 'victim' under s7 HRA 1998. Duties under statutory guidance and the Escalating Concerns Guidance were owed to residents, not the provider. There was no procedural unfairness or breach of public law duties. Article 1 Protocol 1 was not engaged as there was no deprivation of possessions. The claimant's remedy lay in private law.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Permission for judicial review refused
  • No public law remedy granted